Ravish Kashyap vs Swati & Anr.
2015 Latest Caselaw 8659 Del

$-31
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                               DECIDED ON : 20th NOVEMBER, 2015

+     CRL.REV.P.61/2015 & CRL.M.A.Nos.1534/2015 & 13618/2015

      RAVISH KASHYAP                                       ..... Petitioner
                          Through :    Mr.A.N.Aggarwal, Advocate with
                                       Mr.Laxmi Ram & Ms.Nupur
                                       Sachdeva, Advocates along with
                                       petitioner in person.


                          VERSUS



      SWATI & ANR.                                  ..... Respondents
                          Through :    Mr.A.K.Chaudhary, Advocate for
                                       R-1 & R-2 along with R-1 in
                                       person.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

S.P.Garg, J. (Oral)

1. Instant revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner -

Ravish Kashyap to impugn the legality and correctness of an order dated

11.12.2014 of learned Principal Judge, Family Courts, whereby he was

directed to pay interim maintenance @ `7,500/- and `2,500/- per month to

respondents No.1 & 2, respectively. The revision petition is contested by

the respondents.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have

examined the file. It is a matter of record that in the divorce proceedings

pending between the parties, by an order dated 28.10.2013, learned Judge,

Family Courts, had granted interim maintenance @ `3,000/- per month in

all to the respondents under Section 24 Hindu Marriage Act. Earlier

during counseling process, temporary settlement was arrived at between

the parties. The petitioner had agreed to pay `8,000/- per month to the

respondent wife for four months to meet her expenses of delivery.

Apparently, the amount of `8,000/- per month which the petitioner had

agreed to pay was for a limited period and to meet the expenses incurred

by respondent No.1 at the time of delivery. Respondents' case is that the

petitioner is working as Regional Manager in M/s. Horizons Lamkraft Pvt.

Ltd. at D-4, DSIDC Complex, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi and his monthly

income is `1 lac. The petitioner has claimed that he is working as Sales

Executive with Raj Kamal Plywood Pvt. Ltd. and his monthly salary is

`9,000/- per month. Claim of the respondents is based only upon a

'visiting card' where the petitioner has shown to be the Regional Manager

of the said concern. The respondents have not placed on record any salary

certificate to show if the income of the petitioner is `1 lac per month or so

as alleged. This aspect was considered by the Family Court dealing with

divorce petition. The petitioner, on the other hand, has placed on record

the photocopy of the salary certificate issued by Raj Kamal Plywood Pvt.

Ltd. showing his monthly salary `9,000/-.

3. At the time of grant of bail in case FIR No.345/12 under

Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, the petitioner had agreed to pay a sum of `2.5

lacs in cash to the complainant without prejudice. Similarly, the

complainant received `3.25 lacs when co-accused - Vibha Jha @ Pinky

was granted anticipatory bail by this Court on December 20, 2013.

4. Considering the monthly income of the petitioner, interim

maintenance granted @ `10,000/- per month appears excessive and on the

higher side. It is relevant to note that the respondents have challenged the

maintenance order under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act. This Court

vide order dated 23.03.2015 enquired from the petitioner present in Court

about his employment as Regional Manager with M/s. Horizons Lamkraft

Pvt. Ltd. He was categorical to say that he did not know the name of any

such company and had no connection with that whatsoever. He was

directed to continue to pay maintenance amount as awarded by the Family

Court @ `3,000/- in all.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case,

impugned order cannot be sustained and is modified to the extent that the

petitioner shall pay `3,000/- in all as interim maintenance to the

respondents from the date of filing of the petition till the disposal of the

petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The amount received by the

respondents in any other proceedings shall be adjusted towards this

amount.

6. The revision petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

Pending applications also stand disposed of. Trial Court record (if any) be

sent back forthwith with the copy of the order. Observations in the above

order shall not have impact on the merits of the case.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE

NOVEMBER 20, 2015 / tr